BuzzerBeater Forums

Though I understand your idea and do think you're right somewhere, I believe the 'line' you cannot cross is wrong.

I want to take a sidestep in this post, since as far as I know your example from real life is wrong.
Manchester United is owned by the Glazer family. This club also doesn't write black numbers as far as I know. Arsenal is one of the few english clubs that does. Also you shouldn't look in Spain or Italy. If you want an example from football you should look at the german footballclubs.

This whole OP is stupid, how can it draw comments? It is not like you can put millions on your account here in BB from some outside source. You can not use more here per time unit (why week? Month/year/hour/whatever!)than you have managed to produce first the money yourself (your club)!

Yes I agree my examples are certainly not the best. Arsenal would indeed be a lot better here.

About the line story, it's just something that went through my mind... we all gotta start somewhere don't we? Right now I'm thinking about some kind of a "maximum weekly deficit", because it's true that an economy in which everybody earns wouldn't be any good either.

@D. Mirosavljevic: the idea is not about questioning how or where managers get their money from. It's about how to balance the competition and give more credit to managers who plan long term rather than the 1-2 seasons strong rosters. I believe B3 would be a lot more rewarding that way.

By the way, hasn't the nba got some salaries regulations? I'm pretty sure they do. Although there some things that could never be reproduced in bb, like players giving up a huge part of their salary in order to play in a better team (K.G. from Minesotta to Boston) or whatever goes "under the desk".

Last edited by ezlife at 10/8/2011 6:56:18 PM

At the moment, it looks like the best accountants win, not the best global managers. We could give more credit to training and tactics that way.

Isn't those that manage their teams well, good at their finances as well? Tactics and training is only part of this game. The beauty of it is that you can play the game however you want. You don't have to persue a training regime if you do not want to.


Having said that, If the whole point is about making the B3 fair, then I do not believe this is the root cause of this problem. It comes from team's ability to load up and spend more than their income after having built a big buffer of cash that they can afford to make losses week in week out.

But why are they able to build up that buffer of cash? Most teams from competitive nations aren't able to as the competition level on their league will force them to have to spend big on salaries to maintain their level of competitiveness or risk relegation. Having to pay big salaries means they won't be able to build up that big buffer of cash.

On the other hand, it is the smaller countries where competition is low that the top teams there can afford to run a half competitive roster and still save up millions for that buffer of cash. Here is the reason why it is so advantageous to be playing in a smaller nation financially wise as you are able to save up to buy yourself titles so easily due to lack of competition forcing you to keep a full roster (close to your div's salary cap) all season.

However I believe the Manchester United win owing to a great management while City may win with a great sponsor (accountant in BB). Isn't the best manager supposed to succeed in BB? That's what's on the ad...

the investor own a company, when they buy sposrship for a hifgh price is tit then ok?

I thought it was more about playing in dept in the bank not on money they got which count as a investment.

I mean sometimes you have invest on something before you get the profit this maybe the promotion, or building up a label with succes. If you buy a house to rent it to a third party, you are also 20 years in depth with it.

Last edited by CrazyEye at 10/9/2011 9:34:48 AM

Right...then in similarity with the NBA then maybe we should introduce a soft salary cap.

The BBs devise a formula to get a salary ceiling and teams that have salaries above that ceiling pay a "luxury tax" so that extra dollar spent on player salaries above the ceiling requires the team to pay an additional dollar in tax

E.g if you are $50k over the ceiling, then you pay an extra $50k in tax. This would quickly eat into the profits of those teams that have millions saved up hoping to buy championships.

"luxury tax"

We have practically the same mechanism in BB. But it is implemented in salary formula, not as extra tax. So we don't need it.
If You want to have player who is better by one level in all primary skills, then typically his salary increases to ~150% of previous wage. Very simple and effective.

It's more or less a collusion between 2 worlds that I would illustrate with 2 soccer clubs: Manchester United and Manchester City. The first one is a soccer institution that has a great formation center to back up an awesome team. The second one has nothing but a rich president who will buy superstars and try to buy his titles. These are different ways of thinking and both can work.

Very very very very bad example. MU had more money than MC in many previous seasons and it was unfair too.
In BB we have Financial Fair Play. Every team gains money in the same way, in BB we don't have rich sponsor who selects few managers and gives him undeserved cash. Real competition is completly different because some clubs have extra money from outside which is independent of results. So I prefer financial structure in BB than in real life. And of course mechanism like in NBA will be stupid in BB, because only 30 clubs which were created at beginning have chance to fight for title, 31st, 32nd, and next have no chances.

I believe the only way to really make things fair financially is salary cap of some sort. Otherwise VS situations will continue to happen. It would only really effect the top 1% of players in this game. That being said, I don't think it can be done anytime soon.